nkab,
May I simply say I wholly agree with you. On each and every point you made.
.
I add a few more analogies to flush out the point on ignorance. One would not imagine, if one is half-a-bean read in literature, suggesting calling Homer (c.700BC) a Latin Qu Yuan (c.300BC), or Shakespeare an English Cervantez, or Goethe an German Paola Drigo, or Mark Twain an American Wilde.
.
I am humbled by your astute perspective: Nobel Prize for Literature is a Western Prize for mainly Western value. It’s only natural and proper that the Prize was awarded mostly to writers of the West or of the pan/ pseudo West
.
And an even more insightful statement: Nobel Prize is not in the best position to judge Chinese literature or its writers. This award, a big personal honor to Mr. Mo no doubt, is not a vindication of any kind of Chinese literature IMO with or without its awarding to a Chinese writer. My salute to you!
.
The award is a big honor to Mo Yan and congratulations to him. Importantly noted is he is the he is the first writer awarded Nobel Prize based on a body of work done entirely in Chinese. And as more Chinese works are translated in foreign languages (I am now repeating your words ...), it promotes better East-West cultural understanding and encourages more Chinese works to flourish domestically. This is the significance of the Nobel award. Alelujah!

Without naming the specific commenter, and I am keeping a degree of politeness fitting of a public forum, I like to remind the person the following: (1) Do you read any Chinese? (2) Have you read a single book by Mr. Mo, if not in the original, in a translation? (3) What do you know about Mr. Mo's work other than nothing? (4)Do you even know what the Nobel Committee looks for when they award the prize of literature?

Of course there are other writers in the world who might be equally worthy of this prestigious literary prize. But Nobel can only award one each award year. That's not OK with you? Or you'd rather take over the job and be the prize's sole adjudicator knowing the much you know about literature in general and Mr. Mo's work in particular?

Suggesting or calling Mo "A Chinese Dickens" is as ignorant and arrogant as calling Shakespeare "A British Cao Xueqin" (author of Dream of Red Chamber 1724-1764), granted that they were/are all great writers.

Nobel Prize for Literature is a Western Prize for mainly Western value. It’s only natural and proper that the Prize was awarded mostly to writers of the West or of the pan/ pseudo West.

Nobel Prize is not in the best position to judge Chinese literature or its writers. This award, a big personal honor to Mr. Mo no doubt, is not a vindication of anykind of Chinese literature IMO with or without its awarding to a Chinese writer.

This award is a big honor and congratulation to Mo Yan, a much awarded and celebrated writer in China in his own right, he is the first writer awarded Nobel Prize based on his literary work done entirely on Chinese.

Even if this award was considered due (or overdue) recognition of Chinese literature, it’s doubtful that Mo Yan would have been nominated for the Prize had many his work were not translated into English, German and Norwegian (and over 20 languages all told) by noted scholars skilled in such translation.

But as more Chinese works are being translated in foreign languages, it promotes better East-West mutual cultural understanding and encourages more Chinese works to flourish domestically.

That, next to the recognition of Mo Yan himself, is the significance of his Noble Prize of literature IMO.

It is I who was impressed by the views you expressed in many of you comments elsewhere on TE blogs. Your often share a perspective that is balanced and thoughtful.

In terms of a Volkswagen Beetle versus a Mercedes Bebz 600, far from it. A student learns from his teacher. What he knows comes from the teacher.

I agree with you in part and disagree in part about Chinese intelligentsia since late Qing and early Republic turning their back on much of Chinese culture. I think as late as Qing and up to the Cultural Revolution, China saw important political thinkers, scholars and writers who received “Western” influence but turned their heart to their homeland. Examples abound. None other than Zhou and Deng were educated in France in their early formative years. Then there were the cherished Chinese writers of this period, who were all educated in the West and subsequently returned to China 冰心, Smith College (her Letters to My Little Readers continues to bring tears to my eyes), 朱自清, 胡適 Columbia U, 林語堂 Columbia U (two of his books written in Chestertonian English My Country and My people , 1936, and The importance of Living , 1937 introduce China to the Anglophone), and 傅雷 (his translation of Romain Rolland’s Jean Christophe is a beautiful literary work in its own right, magical in its literary fidelity yet so very very Chinese in the feelings it evokes. I read both the English and Chinese translations. The Chinese is so much better.), 錢鐘書, Oxford U (he came to UC Berkeley to make a speech and held his audience spellbound with his utter ease in quoting Greek and Latin classics in their untranslated original), and his wife (I can’t remember her name at this moment) who translated Don Quiote.

I agree with you the Cultural Revolution dealt the single most devastating blow to the confidence of Chinese intelligentsia in the last century. But I think there are those who survive the blow. Remember the saying 飲水思源? Yes, I also remember the moment the proclamation was made: 同志們 我們站起來了! I think those two things will lead to a gradual, albeit slow, recovery. Blood is thicker than Perrier. Always.

I agree with you that all Chinese people should treasure these decades of China’s opening up and its continual reform. It is confidence building that will benefit China and the world, not arrogance, on whoever’s part. This distinction is of vital importance on every level, in every aspect.

I dont think Mr. Mo a Chinese Dickens but the fact that the first ever Nobel Prize winner for literature by a Chinese writer reminds me of the first ever aircraft carrier or the first ever such a training ship in China. Mr. Mo has received up to no fewer congratulations, criticism, suspects, satires and abuses than the latter has. Controversies remain over any prize for literal arts such as Nobel Prize or Hollywood because there is no universal judge for diversified cultures. One man’s meat is another man’s poison, so to speak. Mr. Mo is the first one in history to win the prize, and i am convinced that there will be more to capture more for other fields like physics, medical and economy.

The first aircraft carrier or a training ship made out of scrap iron bought from Ukraine by Chinese shipbuilders is manifest in the way China does, to call a spade a spade. With its limited military spending, self defense strategy is thus being implemented. And I am equally confident there will be more than one aircraft carriers to be seen sailing on oceans, the same breakthrough as first atom bomb, hydrogen bomb, satellite and manned spaceship made by China, which qualifies China as the largest developing country with the most population in the world.

A Latin Qu Yuan (c.300BC) or English Cervantez? You are elevating my view of the matter and re-seating it from a Volkswagen Beetle into a Mercedes Benz 600. It’s that much more impressive and persuasive in your words. Thanks to you.

I think since late Qing and early Republic of China until only recently, Chinese intelligentsia by and large as a group (many of them were noted scholars, civic or political leaders) had lost their minimal self confidence and respect in Chinese culture, with devastating consequences to the whole nation, even with lingering effect till this day.

They lost their self confidence and turned their back on Chinese culture due to two major reasons IMO.

1. Internal: The sharp contrast of physical realities of just about everything they saw of a weakling and war wreck China with that of foreign powers (the guns, cultures and prosperity etc.) since the turn of 1900. You might say that for them “the West is Red”, and since the intelligentsia believed that, the nation followed, often with tragic effects.

2. External: For the past 200 some years with perhaps missionary or religious zealots, the West has had not been shy to impress the world that Western value and culture rule supreme, and Chinese intelligentsia under the circumstances bought it wholesale.

For hundreds of years of doldrums, Chinese self-confidence did not see its symbolic reemergence until October 1st, 1949 when Chairman Mao proclaimed on Beijing TAM that “Chinese people have stood up”. Unfortunately, what self confidence building had managed since then was almost totaled in the “cultural revolution” where keen confidence was taken over by blind arrogance.

That’s why I think the nation and most of us today treasure this decades of opening up and reform. In a nut shell, it’s confidence building that benefits China and the world, not arrogance bloating that jeopardizes them. IMO, it pays for the West to discern and heed that difference.

The Economist could do better than to compare excellence in writing to that racist genocidal maniac Charles Dickens.

The Economist always seeks to hark back to Britain's darkest hours: those of its empire, itself obtained by looting, racism, genocide and racism:

By putting forward Dickens as a name it seeks to sugar coat history with fairy dust. Must the world forget that Charles Dickens wrote the following, expressing his desire to exterminate Hindus:

"I wish I were Commander in Chief over there [India]! I would address that Oriental character which must be powerfully spoken to, in something like the following placard, which should be vigorously translated into all native dialects, “I, The Inimitable, holding this office of mine, and firmly believing that I hold it by the permission of Heaven and not by the appointment of Satan, have the honor to inform you Hindoo gentry that it is my intention, with all possible avoidance of unnecessary cruelty and with all merciful swiftness of execution, to exterminate the Race from the face of the earth, which disfigured the earth with the late abominable atrocities...”

(see . Grace Moore (2004), “Dickens and the Empire. Discourses of class, race, and colonialism in the works of Charles Dickens” (Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, UK)

In my view,Communist is just so so,but Liu Xiaobo is very bad for us,a political swindler.China need go its own way,both pure democracy and dictatorship are human distortion,Chairman Mao 民主集中制 is more suitable for China,sometime we need dictatorship,sometime we need democracy,they should have a good balance.

Why every time you talk about Nobel prize, whether peace or literature, you talk about freedom? I think China is just too free that people can punch each other and can swear each other as much as they can. You should talk about what Mo Yan writes! Mo Yan writes about China's 0.9-billion peasant who were often neglected in Liu Xiaobo's eyes! Liu Xiaobo is just such a dumb people and do harm to China! Communist is very good!

You are not obliged to ( mis ) use the English language.
Before I respond to your drivel permit me to make a remark on one of your sentences. 'You give your colonial masters to much credit ', this should read ' You give your colonial masters too much credit'. I find such otherwise minor mistakes rather irritating in one who has the temerity to attempt to impugn the character of one of the masters of the English language , and one so loved by all who speak that language.
Even now India is not a poor country blame the conditions in which a majority of Indians find themselves in today on the mismanagement of the resource available to India today and the indifference of the ruling elite in India , and do not try to deflect blame for that to a ninetenth century author long dead.India is not the first country to have been plundered as you describe and so does no deserve any special pity for what I acknowledge it suffered. But it hardly suffered more than say Germany, Russia or Japan from the devastating effects of the first and second world wars , so what are you seriously moaning about. Britain hardly colonised any country for over a hundred years.The British do not go about complaining that they are underdeveloped because they were colonised by Rome for over five hundred years - which by the way they were , are you for real , or are you out just itching to have a good moan ? If you want to use sanskrit to communicate that is your own prerogative , but let me warn you in the scheme of things it is not an important language and you will further handicap yourself by making such a rash and foolish decision. But I am not interested in what India or any other country for that matter was in the past , if I were you I would look to the present and ahead to the future to see where I am , and in what direction I am heading.Perhaps you have eyes towards the back of your head , most bormal people have eyes in front for the purposes I have just mentioned ; and for good reason.
If you are seriously trying to justify the murder and suffering of millions of muslims in 1947 at the hands of Hindus , I genuinely feel sorry for you , as you must be totally morally bankrupt and have not a shred of humanity in you . I am neither Hindu nor Muslim , but I do fortunately have enough humanity to empathise with the suffering and loss of others regardless of their race , religion , gender ,sexual orientation or other difference they may have from me.There is absoloutely no justification whatsoever for inflicting suffering on others , and I find it both preposterous and monstrous that you really do have the gall and cheek to attempt any such justification under any pretext whatever. To then have the barefaced cheek to criticise the great Charles Dickens means that in addition you are willing to employ double standards to justify an extremely repugnant moral position. If that is so , then you really have no business criticising Charles Dickens. You attribute repugnant words to him , you are then prepared to justify and condone immoral acts far worse than those you claim Charles was advocating.In short it does not lie in your mouth to criticise Dickens , you have no such moral authority.
I am proud to say as a man of African descent I know the history of that part of Africa my family hails from. Whatever gives you the impression that I do not know my 'native history ? ' as you choose to put it. Or are you a deluded mind reader , able to read mind across the internet ?
Lastly everyone knows about the East India Company , so I am not even going to bother to follow the link you have been gracioud enough to provide me with.The EIC were a band of scoundrels , we all know that.I would agree that many of their business practices were unsavoury and rapacious , however , however , even bad as one could justifiably describe them , they still managed to do leave some good behind , to the extent that much of what we have learnt and use today in international trade derives from their experience in respect of shipping ,banking , trade documentation , warehousing and other aspects of modern globalised trading. The East India Company regardless of what the biased evidence you seem to want to provide me with suggests , was not altogether malign.
I asked you not to respond to my post and promised to rain down thunder on you should you do so.I have responded to your comment with restraint.Should you choose to respond to this comment , I warn you , I may not be as restrained as I have tried to be.

1) A reference was provided. He did state his desire to exterminate Hindus, in many other letters. Feel free to research this. Charles Dickens was a racist genocidal maniac. There is a fact. There can be no excusing it. He wrote in a language that is alien to the people of India. English was not need then, nor is it needed now.

2) India would have been much richer had it not been looted, raped and subjugated by the British. India's wealth was approx. 20% of the world GDP before the British arrived. See Angus Madisson for further information.

"And for many Indians, it was the Company’s plunder that first de-industrialized their country and then provided the finance that fuelled Britain’s own industrial revolution. In essence, the Honourable East India Company found India rich and left it poor. " (1)

3)India had its own written languages that pre-dated Latin. It did not need English nor does it need it now. The number system that is currently in use, Algebra etc all originated in India. The British elite that included your beloved Dickens did their utmost to rewrite, distort and denigrate India and Hinduism.

4) In 1947 Muslims killed and held to ransom the Independence of India by demanding a separate Muslim state. What is your reference for Hindu's killing Muslims? India has grown whilst Muslim and theocratic Pakistan (and increasingly Bangladesh) main exports are terror. Sharia inspired Taliban to attempt to kill a 14 year girl for wanting to learn.

5) You give your colonial masters to much credit. What about your own native history? Suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?

DavidFrawley,your comment is unwarranted and totally without any merit.You take a statement perhaps attributable to Charles Dickens and then decide despite all the wonderful writing he has left the English speaking world to besmirch his reputation on the strength of this one comment.You are generous and charitable aren't you ? You are a really nice person and would like to show the world what a virtuous person you are ? A Ghandi maybe ?
Let me be clear,my family hail from a part of Africa which was colonised by the British,and indeed Nigeria from where I hail was still a colony when I was born over fifty years ago,in addition I have studied the history of colonialism in Africa,which I assume is similar to the colonial experience in various other parts of the world.Colonialism was not benign.Despite that it is fanciful to conclude and assert that the role of the British in their various colonies flung around the world was entirely pernicious. I am getting rather sick of that lame complaint.To be frank,many parts of the world had they been left to their own devices would still be under the shadow of darkness.We have in many parts of the world today proof of my assertion in the former colonies which have had over fifty years of independence from the British.Ask yourself what they have done with it and extrapolate from that what you think these places would be like today if they had not been under the British or had any influence whatsoever,malign or benign from them (... the British).
If the words you quote are indeed the words of Charles Dickens,does that detract from the fact that he was a fine writer ? In attempting to pour vitriol and scorn on his reputation,have you considered the historical context in which he may have written these words or spoken them ? Is it possible that he perhaps may have said them in jest ; or have you barred him from having a sense of humour ?[ Dark humour maybe, but humour non-the- less ]. In what way was he responsible for the massacre of the Muslims by the Hindus at the partitioning of India in 1947 ? Is he any worse than the current Taliban in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan ? [ His words may have been sinister, their deed are sinister ]. We do need to put these things in their proper cultural,historical and political context before reaching spurious and exaggerated conclusions which have no basis.Dickens no doubt was not a saint.If you thoght otherwise you have picked on the wrong man,nor do his readers think he was a saint.Those who have made it their business to study his life know better,but they still have the magnanimity and good common sense to enjoy and appreciate his great work.I would wager that you are no saint yourself,but are one of those self righteous people who like to besmirch the reputation of legends and make iconoclasticism your sport and hobby.Please do not respond to this comment,otherwise I will fall on you like a ton of bricks.

As many have said on this post, it simply isn't right to judge Chinese literature using a western criterium and western ideals. Furthermore, Mo Yan's success in attaining a prestigious prize has little to do with literary freedom. It is unreasonable to scrutinize him over his affiliations with the party, and neither can we form generalizations about him because of that. It was unfair to question Mr Mo's a question about Liu Xiao Bo, simply because Mo may be unfamiliar with Bo's circumstance and because it is unrelated to M Yan's literary success.

I like how you present your case with reasons and calmness. Your reasons are well founded with a sincere appreciation of literature works from every corners of the globe without even a slight hint of xenophobe.

Now you know how I (I am Chinese) feel and fear about these alphabet soup around me. I am scared too, although likewise I must admit the alphabets do look beautiful. May be that's why they have Nobel Prizes?

But guest-ineawes should write in English because this is an English magazine.

"Mr Mo said he hoped that the jailed Mr Liu can “achieve his freedom as soon as possible”" is clearly misquoted. What I understand from his attitude, this statements should read "I wish the time his sentence ends comes soon so that he can achieve freedom" but not any time sooner than that.